From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 18 06:23:46 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA25740 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 06:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.96.120]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA25735 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 06:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msmith@localhost by genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) id XAA25533; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:23:08 +0930 From: Michael Smith Message-Id: <199606181353.XAA25533@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: (SMB/Netware/NFS for DOS clients) (was BSD/OS ...) To: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 23:23:08 +0930 (CST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au In-Reply-To: <9606181038.AA28251@wavehh.hanse.de> from "Martin Cracauer" at Jun 18, 96 12:38:02 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Martin Cracauer stands accused of saying: > > >Personally I can't see any reason for using Netware over Samba in a small to > >medium-sized environment; it's performance is very good and it's much > >cheaper 8) (I expect the admin tools for the NetCon server are much better > >however). > > I've not been able to get acceptable performance out of samba. Not > more than 300-400 KB out of a 10Mbit-EThernet PCI 486 with 3com or WD > ISA ethernet card (or 200 KB/sec out of small Sparcs with SunOS). My > impression is that samba works fine, but is slow. Even PC-NFS on the > same machines reach a higher bandwidth, not to speak of a Windows NT > box serving NetBIOS (the on of our windows fraction fills 10 MB > ethernet easily). CPU time consumption is not the problem with samba, > the CPU is idle, the Ethernet unloaded, just the latency is too high > (as it seems to me). > > If you think your samba servers are faster, could you please post some > benchmark results, reading and writeing a file in - say - 8 KB block > from a Win95 machine? Our previous software suite (pre-FreeBSD) used samba for fileservice on a number of workstations (Sun IPX, Alphastations), and DOS clients using low-performance ISA ethernet cards. Our primary demand on the network was directory lookups (finding the next filename in a spool directory with up to 700 files in it) and bulk writes to the server (several MB in a solid chunk). Unfortunately, the last system of this type around now is out at our field station surrounded by a foot or so of mud, and I'm not inclined to make the hours drive there to get some numbers 8) however I know we were getting over 400K/sec out of a 486DX2/66 using a WD8003 to the IPX, and closer to 600K/sec when we were testing the DEC DC21040 cards in a PCI 486DX4/100. Read performance was never an issue for us, but in "general use" around the office there were no complaints about performance when I ditched the last OS/2 server for FreeBSD/Samba. I'm particularly amazed that PC-NFS works well for you - we were seeing really atrocious write performance from it (and most other NFS clients) when we tried it. (~50-70K/sec was common) Your mileage may, and obviously does, vary 8) > Martin Cracauer - BSD User Group Hamburg -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control (ph/fax) +61-8-267-3039 [[ ]] Collector of old Unix hardware. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[